PASAR v. Lim PDF

3/28/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 804

G.R. No. 172948. October 5, 2016.*

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PABLITO O. LIM,
MANUEL A. AGCAOILI, and CONSUELO M. PADILLA,
respondents.
Mercantile Law; Corporations; Stockholders; Rights of

Stockholders; The Corporation Code provides that a stockholder
has the right to inspect the records of all business transactions of
the corporation and the minutes of any meeting at reasonable
hours on business days. The stockholder may demand in writing
for a copy of excerpts from these records or minutes, at his or her
expense.—The Corporation Code provides that a stockholder has
the right to inspect the records of all business transactions of the
corporation and the minutes of any meeting at reasonable hours
on business days. The stockholder may demand in writing for a
copy of excerpts from these records or minutes, at his or her
expense: Title VIII Corporate Books and Records SECTION 74.
Books to be Kept; Stock Transfer Agent.—Every corporation shall,
at its principal office, keep and carefully preserve a record of all
business transactions, and minutes of all meetings of stockholders
or members, or of the board of directors or trustees, in which shall
be set forth in detail the time and place of holding the meeting,
how authorized, the notice given, whether the meeting was
regular or special, if special its object, those present and absent,
and every act done or ordered done at the meeting. Upon the
demand of any director, trustee, stockholder or member, the time
when any director, trustee, stockholder or member entered or left
the meeting must be noted in the minutes; and on a similar
demand, the yeas and nays must be taken on any motion or
proposition, and a record thereof carefully made. The protest of
any director, trustee, stockholder or member on any action or
proposed action must be recorded in full on his demand. The
records of all business transactions of the corporation and the
minutes of any meetings shall be open to the inspection of any
director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation at
reasonable hours on business days and he may demand, in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001626c7adacfbcb84f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/29
writing, for a copy of excerpts from said records or minutes, at his

expense. Any officer or agent of the corporation who
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

601
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 601

Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation
vs. Lim
shall refuse to allow any director, trustee, stockholder or

member of the corporation to examine and copy excerpts from its
records or minutes, in accordance with the provisions of this Code,
shall be liable to such director, trustee, stockholder or member for
damages, and in addition, shall be guilty of an offense which shall
be punishable under Section 144 of this Code: Provided, That if
such refusal is pursuant to a resolution or order of the Board of
Directors or Trustees, the liability under this section for such
action shall be imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted
for such refusal: and Provided, further, That it shall be a defense
to any action under this section that the person demanding to
examine and copy excerpts from the corporation’s records and
minutes has improperly used any information secured through any
prior examination of the records or minutes of such corporation or
of any other corporation, or was not acting in good faith or for a
legitimate purpose in making his demand.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right to inspect under Section
74 of the Corporation Code is subject to certain limitations.
However, these limitations are expressly provided as defenses in
actions filed under Section 74.—The right to inspect under Section
74 of the Corporation Code is subject to certain limitations.
However, these limitations are expressly provided as defenses in
actions filed under Section 74. Thus, this Court has held that a
corporation’s objections to the right to inspect must be raised as a
defense: 2) the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts
from the corporation’s records and minutes has not improperly
used any information secured through any previous examination
of the records of such corporation; and 3) the demand is made in
good faith or for a legitimate purpose. The latter two limitations,
however, must be set up as a defense by the corporation if it is to
merit judicial cognizance. As such, and in the absence of evidence,
the PCGG cannot unilaterally deny a stockholder from exercising
his statutory right of inspection based on an unsupported and
naked assertion that private respondent’s motive is improper or

merely for curiosity or on the ground that the stockholder is not in
friendly terms with the corporation’s officers.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The clear provision in Section 74 of
the Corporation Code is sufficient authority to conclude that an
action for injunction and, consequently, a writ of preliminary
injunc

602
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

vs. Lim
tion filed by a corporation is generally unavailable to prevent

stockholders from exercising their right to inspection.—The clear
provision in Section 74 of the Corporation Code is sufficient
authority to conclude that an action for injunction and,
consequently, a writ of preliminary injunction filed by a
corporation is generally unavailable to prevent stockholders from
exercising their right to inspection. Specifically, stockholders
cannot be prevented from gaining access to the (a) records of all
business transactions of the corporation; and (b) minutes of any
meeting of stockholders or the board of directors, including their
various committees and subcommittees. The grant of legal
personality to a corporation is conditioned on its compliance with
certain obligations. Among these are its fiduciary responsibilities
to its stockholders. Providing stockholders with access to
information is a fundamental basis for their intelligent
participation in the governance of the corporation as a business
organization that they partially own. The law is agnostic with
respect to the amount of shares required. Generally, each
individual stockholder should be given reasonable access so that
he or she can assess or share his or her assessment of the
management of the corporation with other stockholders. The
separate legal personality of a corporation is not so absolutely
separate that it divorces itself from its responsibility to its
constituent owners.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The confidentiality of business
transactions is not a magical incantation that will defeat the
request of a stockholder to inspect the records.—Good faith and a
legitimate purpose are presumed. It is the duty of the corporation
to allege and prove with sufficient evidence the facts that give rise
to a claim of bad faith as to the existence of an illegitimate
purpose. The confidentiality of business transactions is not a
magical incantation that will defeat the request of a stockholder

to inspect the records. Although it is true that the business is
entitled to the protection of its trade secrets and other intellectual
property rights, facts must be pleaded to convince the court that a
specific stockholder’s request for inspection, under certain
conditions, would violate the corporation’s own legal right.
Furthermore, the discomfort caused to the management of a
corporation when a request for inspection is claimed is part of the
regular matters that a business wanting to ensure good
governance must endure. The range between discomfort and
vexation is a broad one, which may tend to be located in the
personalities of those involved. Certainly, by themselves, these
are not sufficient factual

603
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 603

vs. Lim
basis to conclude bad faith on the part of the requesting

stockholder. Courts must be convinced that the scope or manner
of the request and the conditions under which it was made are so
frivolous that the huge cost to the business will, in equity, be
unfair to the other stockholders. There is no iota of evidence that
this happened here.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako for
respondents.
Cayetano, Sebastian, Ata, Dado and Cruz
collaborating counsels for respondents.

LEONEN, J.:

An action for injunction filed by a corporation generally
does not lie to prevent the enforcement by a stockholder of
his or her right to inspection.1
Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining
Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 to
assail the Court of Appeals’ Decision3 dated January 24,
2006 and Resolution4 dated May 18, 2006. The Court of
Appeals lifted and cancelled the writ of preliminary

injunction issued by the
_______________
1 See Lim v. Court of Appeals, 517 Phil. 522; 482 SCRA 326 (2006) [Per
J. Garcia, Second Division].
2 Rollo, pp. 3286.
3 Id., at pp. 716. The Decision, docketed as C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 88975,
was penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in
by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Vicente Q. Roxas of the
Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id., at pp. 1718. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A.
Jacinto and Vicente Q. Roxas of the Second Division, Court of Appeals,
Manila.

604

vs. Lim
Regional Trial Court,5 which enjoined respondents Pablito

O. Lim (Lim), Manuel A. Agcaoili (Agcaoili), and Consuelo
M. Padilla (Padilla), or their representatives, from gaining
access to the records of Philippine Associated Smelting and
Refining Corporation. The records were then classified as
either confidential or inexistent until further orders from
the court.6
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the facts are as
follows:

(hereafter PASAR) is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines and is engaged in copper
smelting and refining.
On the other hand, Pablito Lim, Manuel Agcaoili and Consuelo
Padilla (collectively referred to as petitioners) were former senior
officers and presently shareholders of PASAR holding 500 shares
each.
An Amended Petition for Injunction and Damages with prayer
for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order,
dated February 4, 2004 was filed by PASAR seeking to restrain
petitioners from demanding inspection of its confidential and
inexistent records.
On February 23, 2004, petitioners moved for the dismissal of

the petition on the following grounds: 1) the petition states no
cause of action; 2) the petition should be dismissed on account
of litis pendentia; 3) the petition is a nuisance or harassment suit;
and 4) the petition should be dismissed on account of improper
venue.
On April 14, 2004, the RTC issued an Order granting PASAR’s
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC held that the
right to inspect book should not be denied to the stockholders,
however, the same may be restricted. The right to inspect should
be limited to the or
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 218220. The Order, dated April 14, 2004 and docketed as
SEC Case No. 0433, was penned by Pairing Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio of
Branch 158 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
6 Id., at p. 99.

605
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 605

vs. Lim
dinary records as identified and classified by PASAR. Thus,

pending the determination of which records are confidential or
inexistent, the petitioners should be enjoined from inspecting the
books. The dispositive portion of said Order states:
“WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary injunction be

issued enjoining respondents Pablito Lim, Manuel A.
Agcaoili and Consuelo N. Padilla or their representatives
from gaining access to records of Philippine Associated
Smelting and Refining Corporation which are presently
classified as either confidential or inexistent, until further
orders from this Court.
Petitioner is required to execute a bond in the amount of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) in
favor of herein respondents to answer for all damages which
the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction should
this Court finally decide that petitioner is not entitled
thereto.
SO ORDERED.”
On May 26, 2004, petitioners filed a Motion for Dissolution of

the Writ of Preliminary Injunction on the ground that the petition
is insufficient. Petitioners claim that the enforcement of the right

to inspect book should be on the stockholders and not on PASAR.
Petitioners further claim that no irreparable injury is caused to
PASAR which justifies the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction.
On January 10, 2005, the RTC issued the assailed Order,
denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioners on the ground
that it is a prohibited pleading under Section 8, Rule 1 of the
Interim Rules on IntraCorporate Controversies under the
Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799). The Motion for Dissolution
of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was likewise denied on the
ground that the writ does not completely result in unjust

606

vs. Lim
denial of petitioners’ right to inspect the books of the corporation.

The RTC further stated that if no preliminary injunction is
issued, petitioners may, before final judgment, do the act which
PASAR is seeking the Court to restrain which will make
ineffectual the final judgment that it may afterward
render.7 (Emphasis in the original)

Aggrieved, Lim, Agcaoili, and Padilla filed before the
Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari8 questioning the
propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of
Appeals held that there was no basis to issue an injunctive
writ, thus:
We agree. The act of PASAR in filing a petition for injunction

with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction is uncalled for. The
petition is a preemptive action unjustly intended to impede and
restrain the stockholders’ rights. If a stockholder demands the
inspection of corporate books, the corporation could refuse to heed
to such demand. When the corporation, through its officers,
denies the stockholders of such right, the latter could then go to
court and enforce their rights. It is then that the corporation could
set up its defenses and the reasons for the denial of such right.
Thus, the proper remedy available for the enforcement of the
right of inspection is undoubtedly the writ of mandamus to be
filed by the stockholders and not a petition for injunction filed by
the corporation.
The Order of the RTC shows that indeed there is no basis for
the issuance not only of the temporary but also of the permanent
injunctive writ. The Order dated April 14, 2004 states:
“In the present case, PASAR failed to present sufficient

evidence to show that respondents’ (petitioners’) demand to
inspect the corporate records was not made in good faith nor
for a lawful purpose. . . . PASAR is
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 89.

8 Id., at pp. 231249.

607
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 607

vs. Lim
reminded that it is its burden to prove that respondents’

action in seeking examination of the corporate records was
moved by unlawful or ill motivated designs which could
appropriately call for a judicial protection against the
exercise of such right[.]”9

Hence, Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining
Corporation filed this Petition praying that this Court
render judgment:
(a) reversing and setting aside the Decision dated 24 January

2006 and Resolution dated 18 May 2006 rendered by the Court of
Appeals;
(b) reinstating the writ of preliminary injunction granted by
the RTC in its Order dated 14 April 2004, and consequently
ordering respondents to desist from further harassing, vexing, or
annoying petitioner with threats of filing criminal complaints
against its President, Bruce Anderson, and other appropriate
parties, as embodied in the letters dated 25 and 27 February 2006
and 31 March 2006;
(c) reinstating the main action for injunction and ordering the
RTC to continue hearing SEC Case No. 0433;
(d) meanwhile, it is respectfully prayed that a temporary
restraining order or status quo order be issued by this Honorable
Court to urgently restrain respondents from further committing
acts which are bases for the application of the writ of preliminary
injunction.10

In the Resolution11 dated July 19, 2006, this Court
denied petitioner’s prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 1415.

10 Id., at p. 84.
11 Id., at p. 402.

608

vs. Lim
order and required respondents Lim, Agcaoili, and Padilla

to comment on the Petition.
Respondents filed their Comment12 on October 16, 2006
through counsel Cayetano, Sebastian, Ata, Dado & Cruz.
On October 20, 2006, they filed a second
13
Comment through counsel Siguion Reyna, Montecillo &
Ongsiako. Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Admit
Attached Reply,14 together with its Reply,15 on December
12, 2006.
In the Resolution16 dated January 24, 2007, this Court
noted respondents’ separate Comments and petitioner’s
Reply. The parties were also directed to submit their
respective memoranda within 30 days from notice.17
Respondents filed their Memorandum18 on March 26, 2007,
and petitioner filed its Memorandum19 on April 2, 2007.
Petitioner argues that the right of a stockholder to
inspect corporate books and records is limited in that any
demand must be made in good faith or for a legitimate
purpose.20 Respondents, however, have no legitimate
purpose in this case.21 If respondents gain access to
petitioner’s confidential records, petitioner’s trade secrets
and other confidential information will be used by its
former officers to give undue commercial advantage to
third parties.22 Petitioner insists that to hold that
objections to the right of inspection can only be raised in an
action for mandamus brought by the stockholder, would
leave a corporation helpless and without an
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 410422.

13 Id., at pp. 423437.
14 Id., at pp. 438441.
15 Id., at pp. 442461.
16 Id., at pp. 492493.
17 Id., at p. 492.
18 Id., at pp. 495510.
19 Id., at pp. 516586.
20 Id., at p. 539.
21 Id., at p. 540.
22 Id., at p. 554.

609
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 609

vs. Lim
adequate legal remedy.23 To leave the corporation helpless

negates the doctrine that where there is a right, there is a
remedy for its violation.24
Petitioner argues that it has the right to protect itself
against all forms of embarrassment or harassment against
its officers, including the filing of criminal cases against
them.25 Moreover, respondents’ request for inspection of
confidential corporate records and documents violates and
breaches petitioner’s right to peaceful and continuous
possession of its confidential records and documents.26
Petitioner further argues that respondents’ Motion for
Dissolution before the Court of Appeals did not comply with
Rule 58, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the
Motion should not have been granted.27 Likewise,
respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading
under Rule 1, Section 8 of the Interim Rules of Procedure
Governing IntraCorporate Controversies28 and should not
have been granted.29 In any case, the Court of Appeals
should have remanded the case to the trial court for further
disposition.30
We are asked to resolve whether injunction properly lies
to prevent respondents from invoking their right to inspect.
We deny the Petition.

I

The Petition asks this Court to enjoin acts beyond what

was enjoined by the Regional Trial Court in its April 14,
2004
_______________
23 Id., at p. 559.
24 Id.
25 Id., at p. 560.
26 Id., at p. 561.
27 Id., at p. 68.
28 A.M. No. 01204SC (2001).
29 Rollo, p. 71.
30 Id., at p. 73.

610

vs. Lim
Order.31 The Regional Trial Court Order did not specify the

particular acts it enjoined respondents from doing:
The question as to what records should be deemed confidential

and inexistent, however, cannot be passed upon at this time, since
neither were admissions made nor sufficient evidence presented
to categorically determine which corporate records are to be
considered confidential and inexistent. In the meantime, then,
and in order to prevent grave and irreparable injury on the part of
PASAR should otherwise be allowed [sic], respondents’ right to
inspect is limited to the ordinary records as identified and
classified by PASAR. Subsequent hearings shall be set to
determine which among the corporate records demanded to be
inspected by the respondents are indeed confidential or
inexistent, and to further determine whether or not the issuance
of a writ of final injunction is in order.
WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
enjoining respondents Pablito Lim, Manuel A. Agcaoili and
Consuelo N. Padilla or their representatives from gaining access to
records of Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Corporation
which are presently classified as either confidential or inexistent,
until further orders from this Court.32 (Emphasis supplied)

What precisely is contemplated by the phrase “gaming
access to records” is not clear.
Taking advantage of this ambiguity, petitioner prays

that the injunction be reinstated and that this Court enjoin
respondents from “harassing, vexing, or annoying
petitioner with threats of filing criminal complaints” and
from “further committing acts which are bases for the
application of the writ of preliminary injunction”:
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 218220.

32 Id., at pp. 219220.

611
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 611

vs. Lim
(b) reinstating the writ of preliminary injunction granted by

the RTC in its Order dated 14 April 2004, and consequently
ordering respondents to desist from further harassing, vexing, or
annoying petitioner with threats of filing criminal complaints
against its President, Bruce Anderson, and other appropriate
parties, as embodied in the letters dated 25 and 27 February 2006
and 31 March 2006;

....

(d) meanwhile, it is respectfully prayed that a temporary
restraining order or status quo order be issued by this Honorable
Court to urgently restrain respondents from further committing
acts which are bases for the application of the writ of preliminary
injunction.33

Petitioner claims that respondents are materially and
substantially invading its right to protect itself by
demanding to inspect petitioner’s purportedly confidential
records. Respondents wrote petitioner and demanded to
inspect its corporate books and records.34 They reiterated
this demand in a subsequent letter.35
On at least two (2) occasions, respondents went to
petitioner’s office to again demand that they be allowed to
inspect.36 On one of these occasions, respondents brought
members of the press, caused work disruption, and
harassed petitioner’s representatives who met with
them.37 When asked the purpose of the inspection of
certain records not ordinarily inspected by stockholders,

respondents answered they wished to ensure that
petitioner’s business transactions were “above board” and
“entered into for the best interest of the company.”38
_______________
33 Id., at p. 84.
34 Id., at p. 523.
35 Id.
36 Id., at p. 524.
37 Id.
38 Id., at p. 525.

612

vs. Lim
During negotiations on the terms of confidentiality

agreements to be executed before respondents are allowed
to inspect certain confidential records, respondents wrote
petitioner stating that they would proceed to inspect the
corporate books and records. They warned petitioner that
should petitioner fail to allow inspection, they would
initiate legal proceedings against it.39 They refused to
accept the final terms and conditions of the confidentiality
agreement and wrote another letter, reiterating their
demand to inspect confidential records.40
After petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City a Petition for Declaratory Relief41 seeking a
declaration of the rights and duties of the parties in
relation to the inspection of the records, respondent Lim
filed a criminal Complaint42 against some of petitioner’s
officers for infringing on their right to inspect petitioner’s
corporate books and records.43 As a result, a criminal case
was filed against Javier Herrero, petitioner’s Former
President, and Jocelyn SanchezSalazar, its Former
Corporate Secretary.44 Respondents caused news reports to
be published on the arrest warrants issued in relation to
these Informations.45
Respondents wrote another letter dated January 30,
2004 demanding again that they be allowed to inspect,
among others, the confidential records.46 On March 31,
2006, respondents wrote another letter threatening to file
criminal charges if they were not allowed to inspect the

confidential records.
_______________
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id., at pp. 118145.
42 Id., at pp. 151154.
43 Id., at p. 527.
44 Id., at p. 51.
45 The criminal case, entitled People of the Philippines v. Javier
Herrero and Jocelyn I. SanchezSalazar and docketed as Criminal Case
No. 76718, was eventually dismissed.
46 Rollo, p. 528.

613
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 613

vs. Lim
They stated that they wanted to ensure that petitioner

complied with environmental laws in the operations of its
plant in Leyte.47
On April 7, 2006, petitioner advised respondents that it
would furnish them with records kept by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. These records
supposedly showed that all environmental laws were
complied with.48 On June 28, 2006 and July 4, 2006,
respondents Lim and Padilla wrote to demand that they be
allowed to inspect the audited financial statements for
2004 and 2005; the interim statements for the end of May
2006; and more detailed records on finance, production,
marketing, and purchasing.49
In September 2006, after a stockholders’ meeting,
respondents again demanded access to certain information
and documents.50 In a letter dated September 8, 2006,
respondents again asked about balance sheet accounts,
advances to suppliers, trade and other receivables,
inventory, investments, current assets, trade and other
payables, related party transactions, cost of goods
manufactured and sold, selling and administrative
expenses, other operating expenses, metal hedging, and
staff costs, among others.51
For an action for injunction to prosper, the applicant

must show the existence of a right, as well as the actual or
threatened violation of this right.52
Specifically, for a writ of preliminary injunction to be
issued, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:
_______________
47 Id., at p. 529.
48 Id.
49 Id., at p. 530.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Supra note 1 at p. 527; p. 331.

614

vs. Lim

RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

....

SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.—A
preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief

demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or
acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or
nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of
the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the
action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.

In Duvaz Corp. v. Export and Industry Bank:53
Anent the first issue, the requisites for preliminary injunctive

relief are: (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is
material and substantial; (b) the right of the plaintiff is clear and
unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity
for the writ to prevent serious damage. As such, a writ of
preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of
an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of
_______________
53 551 Phil. 382; 523 SCRA 405 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division].

615
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 615

vs. Lim
the principal action. The twin requirements of a valid injunction

are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violation.
Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected
and the violation against that right must be shown.
In Almeida v. Court of Appeals, the Court stressed how
important it is for the applicant for an injunctive writ to establish
his right thereto by competent evidence:
Thus, the petitioner, as plaintiff, was burdened to adduce

testimonial and/or documentary evidence to establish her
right to the injunctive writs. It must be stressed that
injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future
rights, and, as such, the possibility of irreparable damage
without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an
injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for
judicial protection must be established. Injunction is not a
remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future
rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and
which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did
not give rise to a cause of action. There must be an
existence of an actual right. Hence, where the plaintiffs
right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not
proper.
An injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there
is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences
which cannot be remedied under any standard
compensation. The possibility of irreparable damage
without proof of an actual existing right would not justify
injunctive relief in his favor.

....

In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the
injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. As the
Court had the occasion to state in Olalia v. Hizon . . . :

616

vs. Lim
It has been consistently held that there is no power

the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires
greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or
more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance
of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that
should never be extended unless to cases of great
injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate
or commensurate remedy in damages.
Every court should remember that an injunction is
a limitation upon the freedom of action of the
defendant and should not be granted lightly or
precipitately. It should be granted only when the court
is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the
emergency demands it.54 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)

Thus, an injunction must fail where there is no clear
showing of both an actual right to be protected and its
threatened violation, which calls for the issuance of an
injunction.
The Corporation Code provides that a stockholder has
the right to inspect the records of all business transactions
of the corporation and the minutes of any meeting at
reasonable hours on business days. The stockholder may
demand in writing for a copy of excerpts from these records
or minutes, at his or her expense:
_______________
54 Id., at pp. 388390; pp. 413414.

617
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 617

vs. Lim

Title VIII
Corporate Books and Records

SECTION 74. Books to be Kept; Stock Transfer Agent.—
Every corporation shall, at its principal office, keep and carefully
preserve a record of all business transactions, and minutes of all
meetings of stockholders or members, or of the board of directors
or trustees, in which shall be set forth in detail the time and place
of holding the meeting, how authorized, the notice given, whether
the meeting was regular or special, if special its object, those
present and absent, and every act done or ordered done at the
meeting. Upon the demand of any director, trustee, stockholder or
member, the time when any director, trustee, stockholder or
member entered or left the meeting must be noted in the minutes;
and on a similar demand, the yeas and nays must be taken on any
motion or proposition, and a record thereof carefully made. The
protest of any director, trustee, stockholder or member on any
action or proposed action must be recorded in full on his demand.
The records of all business transactions of the corporation and
the minutes of any meetings shall be open to the inspection of any
director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation at
reasonable hours on business days and he may demand, in
writing, for a copy of excerpts from said records or minutes, at his
expense.
Any officer or agent of the corporation who shall refuse to allow
any director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation to
examine and copy excerpts from its records or minutes, in
accordance with the provisions of this Code, shall be liable to such
director, trustee, stockholder or member for damages, and in
addition, shall be guilty of an offense which shall be punishable
under Section 144 of this Code: Provided, That if such refusal is
pursuant to a resolution or order of the Board of Directors or
Trustees, the liability under this section for such action shall be
imposed upon the directors or trustees who voted for such refusal:
and Provided, further, That it shall be a defense to any action
under this

618

vs. Lim
section that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts

from the corporation’s records and minutes has improperly used
any information secured through any prior examination of the
records or minutes of such corporation or of any other corporation,
or was not acting in good faith or for a legitimate purpose in
making his demand. (Emphasis supplied)

The right to inspect under Section 74 of the Corporation
Code is subject to certain limitations. However, these
limitations are expressly provided as defenses in actions
filed under Section 74. Thus, this Court has held that a
corporation’s objections to the right to inspect must be
raised as a defense:
2) the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts from the

corporation’s records and minutes has not improperly used any
information secured through any previous examination of the
records of such corporation; and 3) the demand is made in good
faith or for a legitimate purpose. The latter two limitations,
however, must be set up as a defense by the corporation if it is to
merit judicial cognizance. As such, and in the absence of evidence,
the PCGG cannot unilaterally deny a stockholder from exercising
his statutory right of inspection based on an unsupported and
naked assertion that private respondent’s motive is improper or
merely for curiosity or on the ground that the stockholder is not in
friendly terms with the corporation’s officers.55

Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange
56
Commission stresses that “impropriety of purpose . . .
must be set up the [sic] corporation defensively”:
The stockholder’s right of inspection of the corporation’s books

and records is based upon their ownership of
_______________
55 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 276 Phil. 43, 50; 199 SCRA 39, 46

(1991) [Per J. Bidin, En Banc].
56 178 Phil. 266; 89 SCRA 336 (1979) [Per J. Antonio, En Banc].

619
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 619

vs. Lim
the assets and property of the corporation. It is, therefore, an

incident of ownership of the corporate property, whether this
ownership or interest be termed an equitable ownership, a
beneficial ownership, or a quasiownership. This right is
predicated upon the necessity of selfprotection. It is generally
held by majority of the courts that where the right is granted by
statute to the stockholder, it is given to him as such and must be
exercised by him with respect to his interest as a stockholder and
for some purpose germane thereto or in the interest of the
corporation. In other words, the inspection has to be germane to
the petitioner’s interest as a stockholder, and has to be proper and
lawful in character and not inimical to the interest of the
corporation. In Grey v. Insular Lumber, this Court held that “the
right to examine the books of the corporation must be exercised in
good faith, for specific and honest purpose, and not to gratify
curiosity, or for speculative or vexatious purposes.” The weight of
judicial opinion appears to be, that on application for mandamus
to enforce the right, it is proper for the court to inquire into and
consider the stockholder’s good faith and his purpose and motives
hi seeking inspection. Thus, it was held that “the right given by
statute is not absolute and may be refused when the information
is not sought in good faith or is used to the detriment of the
corporation.” But the “impropriety of purpose such as will defeat
enforcement must be set up the corporation defensively if the
Court is to take cognizance of it as a qualification. In other
words, the specific provisions take from the stockholder the
burden of showing propriety of purpose and place upon the
corporation the burden of showing impropriety of purpose or
motive.” It appears to be the “general rule that stockholders are
entitled to full information as to the management of the
corporation and the manner of expenditure of its funds, and to
inspection to obtain such information, especially where it appears
that the company is being mismanaged or that it is being
managed for the personal benefit of officers or directors or

620

vs. Lim
certain of the stockholders to the exclusion of others.”57 (Emphasis

supplied, citations omitted)

Terelay Investment and Development Corp. v. Yulo58 has
held that although the corporation may deny a
stockholder’s request to inspect corporate records, the
corporation must show that the purpose of the shareholder
is improper by way of defense:
The right of the shareholder to inspect the books and records of

the petitioner should not be made subject to the condition of a
showing of any particular dispute or of proving any
mismanagement or other occasion rendering an examination
proper, but if the right is to be denied, the burden of proof is upon
the corporation to show that the purpose of the shareholder is
improper, by way of defense. According to a recognized
commentator:
By early English decisions it was formerly held that

there must be something more than bare suspicion of
mismanagement or fraud. There must be some particular
controversy or question in which the party applying was
interested, and inspection would be granted only so far as
necessary for that particular occasion. By the general rule
in the United States, however, shareholders have a right to
inspect the books and papers of the corporation without first
showing any particular dispute or proving any
mismanagement or other occasion rendering an
examination proper. The privilege, however, is not absolute
and the corporation may show in defense that the applicant
is acting from wrongful motives.
_______________
57 Id., at pp. 314315; pp. 383384.

58 G.R. No. 160924, August 5, 2015, 765 SCRA 1 [Per J. Bersamin,
First Division].

621
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 621

vs. Lim
In Guthrie v. Harkness, there was involved the right of a

shareholder in a national bank to inspect its books for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the business affairs of the

bank had been conducted according to law, and whether, as
suspected, the bank was guilty of irregularities. The court
said: “The decisive weight of American authority recognizes
the right of the shareholder, for proper purposes and under
reasonable regulations as to place and time, to inspect the
books of the corporation of which he is a member. . . . In
issuing the writ of mandamus the court will exercise a
sound discretion and grant the right under proper
safeguards to protect the interest of all concerned. The writ
should not be granted for speculative purposes or to gratify
idle curiosity or to aid a blackmailer, but it may not be
denied to the stockholder who seeks the information for
legitimate purposes.”
Among the purposes held to justify a demand for
inspection are the following: (1) To ascertain the financial
condition of the company or the propriety of dividends; (2)
the value of the shares of stock for sale or investment; (3)
whether there has been mismanagement; (4) in anticipation
of shareholders’ meetings to obtain a mailing list of
shareholders to solicit proxies or influence voting; (5) to
obtain information in aid of litigation with the corporation
or its officers as to corporate transactions. Among the
improper purposes which may justify denial of the right of
inspection are: (1) Obtaining of information as to business
secrets or to aid a competitor; (2) to secure business
“prospects” or investment or advertising lists; (3) to find
technical defects in corporate transactions in order to bring
“strike suits” for purposes of blackmail or extortion.

622

vs. Lim
In general, however, officers and directors have no legal

authority to close the office doors against shareholders for
whom they are only agents, and withhold from them the
right to inspect the books which furnishes the most effective
method of gaining information which the law has provided,
on mere doubt or suspicion as to the motives of the
shareholder. While there is some conflict of authority, when
an inspection by a shareholder is contested, the burden is
usually held to be upon the corporation to establish a
probability that the applicant is attempting to gain
inspection for a purpose not connected with his interests as

a shareholder, or that his purpose is otherwise improper.
The burden is not upon the petitioner to show the propriety
of his examination or that the refusal by the officers or
directors was wrongful, except under statutory
provisions.59 (Citations omitted)

Among the actions that may be filed is an action for
specific performance, damages, petition for mandamus, or
for violation of Section 74, in relation to Section 144 of the
Corporation Code, which provides:
SECTION 144. Violations of the Code.—Violations of any of

the provisions of this Code or its amendments not otherwise
specifically penalized therein shall be punished by a fine of not
less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos but not more than ten
thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by imprisonment for not less than
thirty (30) days but not more than five (5) years, or both, in the
discretion of the court. If the violation is committed by a
corporation, the same may, after notice and hearing, be dissolved
in appropriate proceedings before the Securities and Exchange
Commission: Provided, That such dissolution shall not preclude
the institution of appropriate action
_______________
59 Id., at pp. 1517.

623
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 623

vs. Lim
against the director, trustee or officer of the corporation

responsible for said violation: Provided, further, That nothing in
this section shall be construed to repeal the other causes for
dissolution of a corporation provided in this Code.

In this case, petitioner invokes its right to raise the
limitations provided under Section 74 of the Corporation
Code. However, petitioner provides scant legal basis to
claim this right because it does not raise the limitations as
a matter of defense. As properly appreciated by the Court
of Appeals:
We agree. The act of PASAR in filing a petition for injunction

with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction is uncalled for. The
petition is a preemptive action unjustly intended to impede and
restrain the stockholders’ rights. If a stockholder demands the
inspection of corporate books, the corporation could refuse to heed
to such demand. When the corporation, through its officers,
denies the stockholders of such right, the latter could then go to
court and enforce their rights. It is then that the corporation could
set up its defenses and the reasons for the denial of such right.
Thus, the proper remedy available for the enforcement of the
right of inspection is undoubtedly the writ of mandamus to be
filed by the stockholders and not a petition for injunction filed by
the corporation.60

Petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals erred in
relying on Section 74 of the Corporation Code. It claims
that jurisprudence allows the corporation to prevent a
stockholder from inspecting records containing confidential
information.61 Petitioner cites W.G. Philpotts v. Philippine
Manufacturing Company:62
_______________
60 Rollo, p. 14.
61 Id., at p. 549.
62 40 Phil. 471 (1919) [Per J. Street, En Banc].

624

vs. Lim
In order that the rule above stated may not be taken in too
sweeping a sense, we deem it advisable to say that there are some
things which a corporation may undoubtedly keep secret,
notwithstanding the right of inspection given by law to the
stockholder; as, for instance, where a corporation engaged in the
business of manufacture, has acquired a formula or process, not
generally known, which has proved of utility to it in the
manufacture of its products. It is not our intention to declare that
the authorities of the corporation, and more particularly the
Board of Directors, might not adopt measures for the protection of
such process from publicity.63
However, W.G. Philpotts cannot support petitioner’s

contention since it involved a petition for mandamus where
the stockholder prayed to be allowed to exercise its right to
inspect, and the respondent’s objections were raised as a
defense. Nothing in W.G. Philpotts grants a corporation a
cause of action to enjoin the exercise of the right of
inspection by a stockholder.
The clear provision in Section 74 of the Corporation
Code is sufficient authority to conclude that an action for
injunction and, consequently, a writ of preliminary
injunction filed by a corporation is generally unavailable to
prevent stockholders from exercising their right to
inspection. Specifically, stockholders cannot be prevented
from gaining access to the (a) records of all business
transactions of the corporation; and (b) minutes of any
meeting of stockholders or the board of directors, including
their various committees and subcommittees.
The grant of legal personality to a corporation is
conditioned on its compliance with certain obligations.
Among these are its fiduciary responsibilities to its
stockholders. Providing stockholders with access to
information is a fundamental basis for their intelligent
participation in the governance of the corporation as a
business organization that they
_______________
63 Id., at pp. 474475.

625
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 625

vs. Lim
partially own. The law is agnostic with respect to the

amount of shares required. Generally, each individual
stockholder should be given reasonable access so that he or
she can assess or share his or her assessment of the
management of the corporation with other stockholders.
The separate legal personality of a corporation is not so
absolutely separate that it divorces itself from its
responsibility to its constituent owners.
The law takes into consideration the potential disparity
in the financial legal resources between the corporation
and an ordinary stockholder. The phraseology of the text of
the law provides that access to the information mentioned

in Section 74 of the Corporation Code is mandatory. The
presumption is that the corporation should provide access.
If it has basis for denial, then the corporation shoulders the
risks of being sued and of successfully raising the proper
defenses. The corporation cannot immediately deploy its
resources — part of which is owned by the requesting
stockholder — to put the owner on the defensive.
Specifically, corporations may raise their objections to
the right of inspection through affirmative defense in an
ordinary civil action for specific performance or damages,
or through a comment (if one is required) in a petition for
mandamus.64 The corporation or defendant or respondent
still carries
_______________
64 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 6 provides:

Section 6. Order to comment.—If the petition is sufficient in form
and substance to justify such process, the court shall issue an order
requiring the respondent or respondents to comment on the petition
within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Such order shall
be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may
direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals, the provisions of Section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed.
Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the
respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss,
the petition. Thereafter, the court may require

626

vs. Lim
the burden of proving (a) that the stockholder has

improperly used information before; (b) lack of good faith;
or (c) lack of legitimate purpose.65
Good faith and a legitimate purpose are presumed. It is
the duty of the corporation to allege and prove with
sufficient evidence the facts that give rise to a claim of bad
faith as to the existence of an illegitimate purpose.
The confidentiality of business transactions is not a
magical incantation that will defeat the request of a
stockholder to inspect the records. Although it is true that
the business is entitled to the protection of its trade secrets

and other intellectual property rights, facts must be
pleaded to convince the court that a specific stockholder’s
request for inspection, under certain conditions, would
violate the corporation’s own legal right.
Furthermore, the discomfort caused to the management
of a corporation when a request for inspection is claimed is
part of the regular matters that a business wanting to
ensure good governance must endure. The range between
discomfort and vexation is a broad one, which may tend to
be located in the personalities of those involved.
Certainly, by themselves, these are not sufficient factual
basis to conclude bad faith on the part of the requesting
stockholder. Courts must be convinced that the scope or
manner of the request and the conditions under which it
was made are so frivolous that the huge cost to the
business will, in equity, be unfair to the other stockholders.
There is no iota of evidence that this happened here.
_______________
the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as

it may deem necessary and proper.
65 See CORP. CODE, Sec. 74.

627
VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 627

vs. Lim
II

The Court of Appeals did not commit an error of law in
disregarding the procedure on dissolution of injunctive
writs. It lifted and cancelled the injunction via a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court based on
the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional
Trial Court in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner invokes Rule 58, Section 6 of the Rules of
Court, which provides:
SEC. 6. Grounds for Objection to, or for Motion of Dissolution

of, Injunction or Restraining Order.—The application for
injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of
its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be
denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon
affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed

by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if
granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that
although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining
order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be,
would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined
while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as
he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by
the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the
applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the
injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the
preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it
may be modified.

Petitioner assails respondents’ failure to submit any
affidavit or counterbond pertaining to irreparable damage
and compensation of damages that may be suffered if the
injunction is dissolved.66
_______________
66 Rollo, p. 563.

628

vs. Lim
However, the injunction was lifted and cancelled via a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court,67 not based on a motion for dissolution of the
injunction. Thus, the Court of Appeals evaluated the basis
for the injunction granted by the Regional Trial Court
rather than whether the injunction would cause
irreparable damage to respondents.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta** and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Jardeleza,*** J., Concur in the result.
Petition denied.
Notes.—Individual suits are filed when the cause of

action belongs to the individual stockholder personally, and
not to the stockholders as a group or to the corporation,
e.g., denial of right to inspection and denial of dividends to
a stockholder. (Villamor, Jr. vs. Umale, 736 SCRA 325
[2014])
The Corporation Code has granted to all stockholders
the right to inspect the corporate books and records, and in
so doing has not required any specific amount of interest
for the exercise of the right to inspect. (Terelay Investment
and Development Corporation vs. Yulo, 765 SCRA 1 [2015])

——o0o——
_______________
67 Id., at p. 91.
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 3, 2016.
*** Designated additional member per Raffle dated November 12, 2014.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

PASAR v. Lim PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PASAR v. Lim PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/28/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 804

Mercantile Law; Corporations; Stockholders; Rights of

writing, for a copy of excerpts from said records or minutes, at his

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 601

shall refuse to allow any director, trustee, stockholder or

naked assertion that private respondent’s motive is improper or

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion filed by a corporation is generally unavailable to prevent

magical incantation that will defeat the request of a stockholder

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 603

basis to conclude bad faith on the part of the requesting

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Appeals lifted and cancelled the writ of preliminary

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Regional Trial Court,5 which enjoined respondents Pablito

Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation

On February 23, 2004, petitioners moved for the dismissal of

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 605

dinary records as identified and classified by PASAR. Thus,

“WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary injunction be

On May 26, 2004, petitioners filed a Motion for Dissolution of

is insufficient. Petitioners claim that the enforcement of the right

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

denial of petitioners’ right to inspect the books of the corporation.

We agree. The act of PASAR in filing a petition for injunction

“In the present case, PASAR failed to present sufficient

7 Id., at pp. 8­9.

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 607

reminded that it is its burden to prove that respondents’

(a) reversing and setting aside the Decision dated 24 January

9 Id., at pp. 14­15.

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

order and required respondents Lim, Agcaoili, and Padilla

12 Id., at pp. 410­422.

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 609

adequate legal remedy.23 To leave the corporation helpless

The Petition asks this Court to enjoin acts beyond what

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Order.31 The Regional Trial Court Order did not specify the

The question as to what records should be deemed confidential

Taking advantage of this ambiguity, petitioner prays

31 Id., at pp. 218­220.

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 611

(b) reinstating the writ of preliminary injunction granted by

certain records not ordinarily inspected by stockholders,

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

During negotiations on the terms of confidentiality

criminal charges if they were not allowed to inspect the

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 613

They stated that they wanted to ensure that petitioner

For an action for injunction to prosper, the applicant

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief

Anent the first issue, the requisites for preliminary injunctive

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 615

the principal action. The twin requirements of a valid injunction

Thus, the petitioner, as plaintiff, was burdened to adduce

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It has been consistently held that there is no power

54 Id., at pp. 388­390; pp. 413­414.

VOL. 804, OCTOBER 5, 2016 617

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

section that the person demanding to examine and copy excerpts

7 Id., at pp. 89.

9 Id., at pp. 1415.

12 Id., at pp. 410422.

31 Id., at pp. 218220.

54 Id., at pp. 388390; pp. 413414.

57 Id., at pp. 314315; pp. 383384.

59 Id., at pp. 1517.

63 Id., at pp. 474475.